WELCOME TO....Djoko-Land !

"My first tennis memories were watching Pete Sampras lift the trophy at Wimbledon....and I fell in love!"

Here's a little insight into Novak's background and what makes him the person and player he is:

• how a boy who was born in the country with 2 tennis courts,
  
• a 7 year old who understood the hardship his family went through in order to fund his tennis lessons and hence only had time to play with his toys at night,
  
• started playing tennis during a war, rose above his circumstances, dared to dream, fullfilled, and then
  
• exceeded those dreams by creating a tennis tournament and network that will allow others to dream...
  

(part 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UURnHXrPmM
(part 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpTu35gKCjc&feature=relmfu

Nothing half-baked about One and only, very special Nole!

This can turn into a very interesting question. What is the initial motivation to play the game and maybe later become a "Great"?

Here it seems from your OP NITB that Djoko was attracted to tennis by a player being crown by the highest title. That's good but not very original. The desire to be centre stage and holding what everybody else was fighting for is I guess the dream of many children.

I was interested in the "game" side of the sport. Controlling a ball and mastering the element. Being able to control a ball sent at high speed to me, yet being able to use the pace and energy of teh ball and sending it back away from my opponent by simply using my eye/hand coordination skills and outsmart him...when I could. This is really what I liked about tennis and why I still play it 35 years on. Sure I am no professional but that woudl have been my approach to the game and I think this is what I see in a McEnroe or Federer. The cat who likes playing with a woolen ball or the drops falling from a tap.

I am not saying there is a right way to be a tennis champion but the way one plays could possibly tell about the way one plays.

Oh T!!!!!!!
He was 5 when he said it!!!!

But I know what you mean by the kitten with a ball of wool. The living, unbounded joy of keeping your eye on it, trying to get yourself in the best position to hit it, and the challenge of not taking your eye off it!
And (in my case) those special moments when you hit it so sweetly you blush with excitement!
There is definitely a magic pull and a relationship with the ball, sometimes it feels like you are not playing the other person but the ball itself!

Yes..and I am not saying its a bad thing as millions of children watch sport for that moment. But he remembers this is when he fell in love with the sport.

You can see how different his approach to the game is to McEnroe for instance. McEnroe loved the game while guys like Pete, Djoko and Hewitt for instance really love to win.

It doesn't matter how old they are when they say those things it just says something.

It's an interesting perspective, and worth looking at players through it, the only thing is I am not sure whether we are in the perfect position to judge them based on what we see when they play, or an excerpt of what they say.
But I can see your point, play to win or play for the love of play.And which one prevails among each individual pro.
Consequences can be very far-reaching and reflect on the game as well. And all the rest, oh no, now you have opened Pandora's box here

Yes look at Pete. He reached his 14 slams was very happy thought his record was secured for life and retired. Mcenroe, Nasatase or Federer kept on playing way after their coudl win slams cause they loved teh game and challenge the new generation. I remember McEnroe taking the piss of Nastase for staying so long on the tour and then he stayed quite a bit himself and was excited to play teh likes of Becker or Agassi late in his career himself. He even plays the tour still cause I do believe he simply loves the game....more than he dislikes losing to X n Y.

Tenez wrote: He even plays the tour still cause I do believe he simply loves the game....more than he dislikes losing to X n Y.

I can certainly relate to the "losing" bit, the pleasure of chase certainly beats the frustration of losing, or more- not doing your "bit" right. Actually, when you think about it, people are playing tennis for all sorts of different reasons, I haven't met many people in my club yet, it's quite big, but will make an effort to ask as many as I can when I go to the Christmas Bond party: why do you play/like tennis? Or how did you start playing and see what they come up with. Hope they serve Pimms there, it does have the magic effect

Tenez wrote:Mcenroe, Nasatase or Federer kept on playing way after their coudl win slams.

For how long after he could no longer win did Federer play?

Tenez wrote:Yes look at Pete. He reached his 14 slams was very happy thought his record was secured for life and retired. Mcenroe, Nasatase or Federer kept on playing way after their coudl win slams cause they loved teh game and challenge the new generation. I remember McEnroe taking the piss of Nastase for staying so long on the tour and then he stayed quite a bit himself and was excited to play the likes of Becker or Agassi late in his career himself. He even plays the tour still cause I do believe he simply loves the game....more than he dislikes losing to X n Y.

I won't say Pete didn't enjoy his tennis. He certainly did and it showed in his on court behavior. But the demands of playing as a pro is huge and different players will have their own capacities to meet such demands. How long can a player sustain it, it totally depends on the individual. I don't think Pete retired thinking his record was secure. I think he just wanted to go on a high. After what he had achieved, he just wanted to retire with a big success. And what better it could have been than a slam win among his home crowd. I think if he hadn't won the USopen 2002, he might have continued for some more time.

I won't say Pete didn't enjoy his tennis. He certainly did and it showed in his on court behavior.

But he stopped playing and did not touch his racquet until he was begged to play the senior tour. Surely that is not "lovong to play". I don;t think he enjoyed his tennis as much and I personally did not see it on court. I am sure he did at time enjoy playing well but his game lacked flair and creativity compared to the ones above or even to guys liek Leconte or Ivanisevic.

It's very clear to see who loves the game....they still play it and talk about it. The others simply hang their racquets and move on.

I think Nole loves it as well.
The winnng side of him probably stems from the sheer burden of responsibility he will have felt all his childhood because of all the financial difficulties his family went through.
He is shaking it off slowly, but is definitely the one who doesn't mind a bit of fun on the court. Not in the same way as Mac but def not a pure winning machine

Well it's true that the pressure of winning take a lot of the pleasure away but the creativity and originality of the game is what in my view sets some aprat and I am afraid I do not see that much guile in Djoko's game. However I am sure he loves winning....as much as Murray hates losing for instance.

Tenez wrote:Well it's true that the pressure of winning take a lot of the pleasure away but the creativity and originality of the game is what in my view sets some aprat and I am afraid I do not see that much guile in Djoko's game. However I am sure he loves winning....as much as Murray hates losing for instance.

That is very true. Nole definitely loves winnin and lifting trophies probably more than anything and it shows inthe way he plays.
His character makes up for flair quite a bit though, although it's far from being flairless.

Novak is the man to beat and has been past 2 years.

Tenez wrote:

I won't say Pete didn't enjoy his tennis. He certainly did and it showed in his on court behavior.

But he stopped playing and did not touch his racquet until he was begged to play the senior tour. Surely that is not "lovong to play". I don;t think he enjoyed his tennis as much and I personally did not see it on court. I am sure he did at time enjoy playing well but his game lacked flair and creativity compared to the ones above or even to guys liek Leconte or Ivanisevic.

It's very clear to see who loves the game....they still play it and talk about it. The others simply hang their racquets and move on.

That's a good point Tenez.

Tenez wrote:Yes look at Pete. He reached his 14 slams was very happy thought his record was secured for life and retired. Mcenroe, Nasatase or Federer kept on playing way after their coudl win slams cause they loved teh game and challenge the new generation. I remember McEnroe taking the piss of Nastase for staying so long on the tour and then he stayed quite a bit himself and was excited to play teh likes of Becker or Agassi late in his career himself. He even plays the tour still cause I do believe he simply loves the game....more than he dislikes losing to X n Y.

In a sense Ten is that not playing to win as such?

I take the viewpoint that yes that all players do enjoy the sport, whether they crave the success in tennis as much is another thing. I mean god I used to think Agassi enjoyed tennis and after reading his book I was very conflicted and still to this day unsure why he continued to play if he had such a disdain for the sport.

I think if players choose not to play in the seniors, the decision could be driven by physical limitations. Yes it isn't intense as the current tour, but I would hate to judge many because of whether they continue to play. Let's use the example of Sampras who towards the end of his career was suffering injuries with his shoulder and shin splints. It would be the same as Hewitt. I think he plays because he does love the game. I mean look at his injuries. That would've sent anyone else into early retirement.

I think Djokovic for me does enjoy the game. I mean he is the only guy to have been hotdogged by 2 players and still smiled about it.

Nastase and Ivanisevic were very big personalities. You could argue that their personality in some respects took the edge of personal ambition to win, McEnroe loved to win in his early career. Same as Connors and it was only with age that they enjoyed the sport more because they had tasted success. Would have McEnroe or Connors played with the same mindset had they not endured success?

Take Tsonga. He enjoys it. The lack of success hasn't really dampened his spirits. Yes he is scrutinised by the press for the lack of success that someone of his abilities. These types of players you find are accused of 'under-achieving' quite the catch-22 you find.

My friend from yesterday' s lunch is a tennis fanatic. He simply lives it with every cell of his body.
I made a point of asking him and his 7 year old son whom he has been teaching to play why they like tennis.
The boy first said: Because it's good!
When I then asked him whether he prefers to play or to win he excitedly saidTo win!
I then asked his dad the same and his face was so blisful when he answered in a quiet, solemn and a tiny bit annoyed that I even asked him the silly question: to play.
I asked him to bring his racquets and balls but after lunch it took me considerable effor to dislodge everyone out of their chairs and go to the park to play ( not him and the boy, of course).
It was a bit on the cold side and we were all quite below his level but it was a happy and wonderful time .
I have counted it my personal proud achievement to have managed to convince his wife to pick up the racquet: she so hated it before she bever stepped on the tennis court and much to her husband's annoyance has never seen her son play.
And she was - good!!!!
So there you go...

I think with Hewitt, it's mostly the thrill of the fight, a bit between his teeth kind of thing, very Australian!

I take the viewpoint that yes that all players do enjoy the sport, whether they crave the success in tennis as much is another thing. I mean god I used to think Agassi enjoyed tennis and after reading his book I was very conflicted and still to this day unsure why he continued to play if he had such a disdain for the sport.

Well it's called "professional" tennis. It's a job and like many out they don;t always enjoy their jobs. We see it as entertainment but I am sure the entertainment side of the game quickly disappears when you take on the "job" to make a living out of tennis.

Even those who love the game must find it very hard to go to those training sessions and long hours in teh gym, plus airports, media conf , anti-doping waking you early, etc.... Federer talks about it at length. So if you don't love it at the beginning, it can quickly turn into a nightmare and Agassi probably expresses it well in his book. Of course it's a sport with ups and downs so you are likely to have good phases helping you to go through bad ones but the job is not to play the game, it;s to make a living out of it. And for those guys it's most likely the time when they can make most money and those 1 to 10 years on the tour is going to be key for the kind of living they will have for the rest of their lives. But clearly unless you are immensely talented, or extremely hard worker and successful, pro tennis is probably a nightmare of a job.

I think if players choose not to play in the seniors, the decision could be driven by physical limitations. Yes it isn't intense as the current tour, but I would hate to judge many because of whether they continue to play. Let's use the example of Sampras who towards the end of his career was suffering injuries with his shoulder and shin splints. It would be the same as Hewitt. I think he plays because he does love the game. I mean look at his injuries. That would've sent anyone else into early retirement.

I think Djokovic for me does enjoy the game. I mean he is the only guy to have been hotdogged by 2 players and still smiled about it.

Well for Hewitt it's clear money is a key factor as well as wanting to comapre himself with top players when an occasion arises. I think there is the addiction to the spotlight as well. Filing the stadium or playing in from of the them is thrilling for anybody who hasn;t had too much of it. Lendl certainly had an injury that forced him to retire but still he acknowledge not even knowing who were the top players untill a stock crash forced him to sell his knowledge through interviews and coaching.

Pete won the USO so clearly, even if injured, I don;t think it would have prevented to play for fun. Again he came back to play again to measure himself against the new and old rivals and most likely cause he was bored to death at home.

Nastase and Ivanisevic were very big personalities. You could argue that their personality in some respects took the edge of personal ambition to win, McEnroe loved to win in his early career. Same as Connors and it was only with age that they enjoyed the sport more because they had tasted success. Would have McEnroe or Connors played with the same mindset had they not endured success?

They all love winning..,some love winning essentially (Borg, Pete), a few love playing as well.

Take Tsonga. He enjoys it. The lack of success hasn't really dampened his spirits. Yes he is scrutinised by the press for the lack of success that someone of his abilities. These types of players you find are accused of 'under-achieving' quite the catch-22 you find.

He certainly has a fun game comapred to others....but he also has been very susccessful relatively speaking....

A huge part of the watching pros side of tennis enjoyment is observing how players' characters come through the way they play and their game.
Naturally, the limitations of the amount of talent as well as other factors such as level of athleticism, build etc play an important role, but it is almost tragic to have players to whom tennis is just a job, and the one they hate at that!
A lot of current crop seem to be on the cash gravy train, the way tennis is being played more and more safely is the proof.
I wonder what Nadals answer to the question would be?
Has the poor guy ever had a chance to enjoy himself next to uncle Mengele?

Well it's called "professional" tennis. It's a job and like many out they don;t always enjoy their jobs. We see it as entertainment but I am sure the entertainment side of the game quickly disappears when you take on the "job" to make a living out of tennis.

Even those who love the game must find it very hard to go to those training sessions and long hours in teh gym, plus airports, media conf , anti-doping waking you early, etc.... Federer talks about it at length. So if you don't love it at the beginning, it can quickly turn into a nightmare and Agassi probably expresses it well in his book. Of course it's a sport with ups and downs so you are likely to have good phases helping you to go through bad ones but the job is not to play the game, it;s to make a living out of it. And for those guys it's most likely the time when they can make most money and those 1 to 10 years on the tour is going to be key for the kind of living they will have for the rest of their lives. But clearly unless you are immensely talented, or extremely hard worker and successful, pro tennis is probably a nightmare of a job

I think with Agassi he disliked the game from the off. Part of that view I felt was because his Dad was such a militant in his training. I feel it was only with Gilbert that he better understood himself on the court. There wasn't the massive laps in the concentration that he exhibited in his early days.

I guess we could coin the 'Professional' term as more job and career like. I think yes if you commit so much to it in your youth days to the sport, you may as well continue with it. I think the sacrifice many make is amazing and courageous. Yes the rewards are handsome for what they get out of it, but do they really feel like that they fit in with the rest of the people once they are beyond the game?

Well for Hewitt it's clear money is a key factor as well as wanting to comapre himself with top players when an occasion arises. I think there is the addiction to the spotlight as well. Filing the stadium or playing in from of the them is thrilling for anybody who hasn;t had too much of it. Lendl certainly had an injury that forced him to retire but still he acknowledge not even knowing who were the top players untill a stock crash forced him to sell his knowledge through interviews and coaching.

Pete won the USO so clearly, even if injured, I don;t think it would have prevented to play for fun. Again he came back to play again to measure himself against the new and old rivals and most likely cause he was bored to death at home.

I am with NITB on this point. She nailed it on the head that he likes "competiting one on one" almost a sense of gladitorial pride that goes with it. Why do so many of us enjoy his matches still in the early rounds of Slams? It is because he still goes out there to fight the cause. Yes he might not win the match, but you know he gives 100% no matter what so at least there is that honesty that follows him on the court.

Injuries Ten can last a lifetime. If you are a retired pro tempted by the seniors, you might seek medical advice and the recommendation maybe just to lay off tennis to avoid longstanding injuries. I quit football because my knees would've dissolved into dust. Luckily I was able to take a break from sport and play something like tennis. Yes the competitive spirit still burns, but when I play the game I have to think more with my head and less with my heart. When I see a passing shot I have to let them go than risk a slide or stretch that with have me laying on the deck Murray style


The question is how far would someone push themselves for the sport they love? You play it your whole life. Live and breath the tour. When that time comes that the mind and body can no longer wisthstand the demands, I would imagine every athlete welcomes the life away from their sport. I think they become stagnant if they still crave that competitive contest that they feel is missing.

noleisthebest wrote:A huge part of the watching pros side of tennis enjoyment is observing how players' characters come through the way they play and their game.
Naturally, the limitations of the amount of talent as well as other factors such as level of athleticism, build etc play an important role, but it is almost tragic to have players to whom tennis is just a job, and the one they hate at that!
A lot of current crop seem to be on the cash gravy train, the way tennis is being played more and more safely is the proof.
I wonder what Nadals answer to the question would be?
Has the poor guy ever had a chance to enjoy himself next to uncle Mengele?

But NITB, did not you say that Djoko himself changed his aggressive game to make it safer?

I think it;s perfectly normal to play tennis to make money. They woudl be stupid to play the game to look good losers.

How far would someone push themselves?

That's the beauty of tennis, if you love the play and the ball it's that love that pushes you.
It's almost irrational.
I have the same madness for water, just cant resist it!
And the strange thing is not so much the swimming which I used to do for hours in my youth just to kill boredom, but the fun of seeing clear blue sea and diving into it.
And that never changed, same with tennis.
Whatever stage in life I was: whether the play was just a dream, whether I had to swallow pride and start from scratch, whether I happend to see a tennis ball on the train-tracks on my way to Wimbledon, or see an 80 year old couple like a pair of 6 year-olds, hold hands on their way to the tennis club, or simply get to the ball you thought was too far and putting it away with that extra inch of your arm you didn't know you even had, and the millisecond of bliss to see it land in!
Too many things constitute the love of tennis, and I'm sure that we enjoy it the same if not more than many pros.

Tenez wrote:

But NITB, did not you say that Djoko himself changed his aggressive game to make it safer?

I think it;s perfectly normal to play tennis to make money. They woudl be stupid to play the game to look good losers.

He has. And when I see Nadal beaten in that AO final, I can almost say it was worth it !

Although, to be fair, a lot of players have changed their game to adjust to the slower conditions, Fed is not what the used to be years ago, and it's not his age I'm talking about.

Playing with a DBH is a first sign of selling your soul in some ways, as it takes away a lot of fun when playing, at least from my very limited experience.
Having said all this, we could be a bit too optimistic to expect the pros to love the play in its most essential way. It is their job, and a lot of them are pushed into it from a young age by their parents.
Unfortunately, that's how the route to becoming a pro seems to go.
WTA is a very ugly example of it.

It's about making a living. There is no way around that...unless you are Gulbis who is rich enough and probably can enjoy the tour for fun but it shows in his results.

Tenez wrote:It's about making a living. There is no way around that...unless you are Gulbis who is rich enough and probably can enjoy the tour for fun but it shows in his results.

Well yes, but there are a few notable exceptions who don't have Gulbis-calibre rich daddies, who still play the game with great love: Dolgo and Paire among the younger ones.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's about making a living. There is no way around that...unless you are Gulbis who is rich enough and probably can enjoy the tour for fun but it shows in his results.

Well yes, but there are a few notable exceptions who don't have Gulbis-calibre rich daddies, who still play the game with great love: Dolgo and Paire among the younger ones.

But coudl they play a safer game? karlovic could not either I guess. Their strength is their quick hands so yes they look like they took on the game because they liked the fun of it but asa you decide to make a living out of it, you need to change your approach unless you have Federer's talent....but as you said even him made his game much safer at the cost of losing that amazing FH he had in his first years as nber 1.

I reckon Paire could play as safe as anyone, but am I glad he is not!
Not sure about Dolgo, he is quite a rebel, but could turn into Davy if he wanted to, I think he loves to play a bit more, though, and why not.

Just like Da Silva among all those sprinters

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:It's about making a living. There is no way around that...unless you are Gulbis who is rich enough and probably can enjoy the tour for fun but it shows in his results.

Well yes, but there are a few notable exceptions who don't have Gulbis-calibre rich daddies, who still play the game with great love: Dolgo and Paire among the younger ones.

But coudl they play a safer game? karlovic could not either I guess. Their strength is their quick hands so yes they look like they took on the game because they liked the fun of it but asa you decide to make a living out of it, you need to change your approach unless you have Federer's talent....but as you said even him made his game much safer at the cost of losing that amazing FH he had in his first years as nber 1.

I think most talented players are happier because they can play the game in a much relaxed manner. Take Dolgo v Ferrer yesterday. The match time was extremely quick and Dolgo wasn't moving fast, but the shots he played were just jaw droppingly good. Paire against Federer was bizarre. I wouldn't say the drop shot is something Paire should proceed with. Get's a ridiculous amount of height on it which led to so many BH put aways by Federer.

I admit Dolgo is the one out of the few 'talents' that I find thrilling to watch. It's quite sad when commentators are saying that at 23 he is still developing. Seems 25 is the new 21.

legendkillar wrote:
I admit Dolgo is the one out of the few 'talents' that I find thrilling to watch. It's quite sad when commentators are saying that at 23 he is still developing. Seems 25 is the new 21.

The game has changed a bit since the days when players won slams very young, the ones that did (Becker and Nadal) looked like they were 25 anyway.
All players are developing all the time, be it their fitness, particular shots & technique, variety of serving etc, everyone does what they can as much as they can, and we see the finished product and the bar they can reach according to their talent and/or hard work.
The saddest players to me are those that actually have no game, just shots, no variety: just stand on the base line, bash the ball hard and long, try to last as long as possible in a rally, and that works up to a certain level.
But that's just like any profession, you have those that are struggling with their work and those that excel and enjoy it to the point they never want to retire.

noleisthebest wrote:

legendkillar wrote:
I admit Dolgo is the one out of the few 'talents' that I find thrilling to watch. It's quite sad when commentators are saying that at 23 he is still developing. Seems 25 is the new 21.

The game has changed a bit since the days when players won slams very young, the ones that did (Becker and Nadal) looked like they were 25 anyway.
All players are developing all the time, be it their fitness, particular shots & technique, variety of serving etc, everyone does what they can as much as they can, and we see the finished product and the bar they can reach according to their talent and/or hard work.
The saddest players to me are those that actually have no game, just shots, no variety: just stand on the base line, bash the ball hard and long, try to last as long as possible in a rally, and that works up to a certain level.
But that's just like any profession, you have those that are struggling with their work and those that excel and enjoy it to the point they never want to retire.

I think 21 was like the age players come to the fort. Federer and Djokovic were 21 when winning their maiden Slams. I just think that age now was been pushed up slightly because of the consistent Slam success by Federer and Nadal and more recently Djokovic. Look at Murray. 25 when winning a maiden Slam. I had him passed it to be honest.

It's interesting the opinion of Davy. For me he gets way too tight in the big moments. He can play for an hour where he is painting the lines and then all of sudden just to wide and into the net and long on shots he was making for fun. Must be a Russian thing because they are temperimental so and so's

Davy does what he can.
I saw him beat Fed in O2 and win WTF after 13 consecutive losses.
Not all players can win tournaments and in this particular generation that group is still reasonable.
What is it that prevents Davy from being "on fire" all the time ?

noleisthebest wrote:Davy does what he can.
I saw him beat Fed in O2 and win WTF after 13 consecutive losses.
Not all players can win tournaments and in this particular generation that group is still reasonable.
What is it that prevents Davy from being "on fire" all the time ?

I do think it is mental NITB. Physically he seems fine to me and as you rightly said put in a super performance at the WTF 2009. Many including me at the time thought this is what he needed. A big title and some big performances over top players and it went the other way sadly.

I think he is a miserable version of Tsonga

Davy has his limitations, that's all. He has neither over nor underachieved.
A lovely player to watch when on, and that's about it.
I quite like his box as well: Irina in all her transformations and that brother-coach of his not hiding his frustrations with his little brother now and then....
We sometimes have unrealistic expectations of certain players, and Davy is one of those. I think he's had a very nice career all things considered.

Could Davy have won a Slam? In my opinion no, but I certainly felt he could've gone deeper in draws. Davy is a player for me you could say was cursed by expectation. Would we throw Davy on the list of players who could've achieved more had it not been for Roger? There is such a list with the likes of Nalbandian/Hewitt/Roddick/Ljubicic/Blake/Davydenko.

That list has some fantastic players on it. I won't just attribute the lack of success down to Federer, though it has to be said they could've achieved that one day of super play like Safin/Delpo did.

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Davy does what he can.
I saw him beat Fed in O2 and win WTF after 13 consecutive losses.
Not all players can win tournaments and in this particular generation that group is still reasonable.
What is it that prevents Davy from being "on fire" all the time ?

I do think it is mental NITB. Physically he seems fine to me and as you rightly said put in a super performance at the WTF 2009. Many including me at the time thought this is what he needed. A big title and some big performances over top players and it went the other way sadly.

You say it's mental but it's a wrist injury that took him from top of the ranking to bottom. He also has a great record in finals, one of the best if I remember correctly.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Davy does what he can.
I saw him beat Fed in O2 and win WTF after 13 consecutive losses.
Not all players can win tournaments and in this particular generation that group is still reasonable.
What is it that prevents Davy from being "on fire" all the time ?

I do think it is mental NITB. Physically he seems fine to me and as you rightly said put in a super performance at the WTF 2009. Many including me at the time thought this is what he needed. A big title and some big performances over top players and it went the other way sadly.

You say it's mental but it's a wrist injury that took him from top of the ranking to bottom. He also has a great record in finals, one of the best if I remember correctly.

I think he is unbeaten in finals.

Not sure when his wrist injury occured.

His wrist packed up shortly after that win in WTF, remember he was even tipped as one of the favourites for AO 10

I know my French's pretty sporadic, but did I understand correctly that Nadal, too, loves tennis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=g8fRxNqfhn8#!

link courtesy of one and only Wooffie, who else?

Yes he says so. he might well do but as said we will see this really when he retires. I however think that nowadays most players will try to keep a job in tennis cause it can actually pay very well. Look at Henman he made more money commentating for 2 weeks than on a year on tour...almost.

Tenez wrote:Yes he says so. he might well do but as said we will see this really when he retires. I however think that nowadays most players will try to keep a job in tennis cause it can actually pay very well. Look at Henman he made more money commentating for 2 weeks than on a year on tour...almost.

I wouldn't mind being a guest commentator ... I'd tell people as it is from our point of view... I mean who wants to listen to Rusedski when they can enjoy a Nole's fan insights into all the quirkieast facets of the number one's mindset (you'd brief me on the more technical aspects just before the match)

Imagine Wooffie's guest commentating appearance at a Lopez - Nadal match! She'd make Judy Murray blush to death.
Now if you were a fan, you could do Fed's ones, but since you are not....

I don't miss the 'Deliciano' comments.

Use to drive me potty!